Previous manufacturing systems have provided a number of features. In the area of additive manufacturing, however, systems have often been unnecessarily limited by aspects such as the way in which the actual additive manufacturing is physically achieved, and often the singular process capability presented by a particular 3D printer or the like. By design additive manufacturing systems move a process element or head in rectilinear motion to fabricate the item. Movement consists of a series of left-right, fore-aft step motions that are determined to make the desired item. This type of movement can at times limit the accuracy of the end result and make the fabricated item less than optimal. Accordingly, better movement to achieve a better end resulting fabricated item have been desired, however, the limits of what was perceived as mandated stepper motor motions in an X and Y direction have been viewed as limited the possibilities for most additive manufacturing systems. For example, for typical 3D printers, as shown in U.S. Pat. No. 8,824,777, traditional movement is still used even when shrinkage is factored into the end result.
Previous systems have either had instructions manually describe their motions, or have generated commands from a computer program that were then loaded onto the processor controller for execution. Based on the instructions, the control processor activated motors corresponding to an axis moving either the operational head or the part itself. The commands could also be sent in parallel causing both the part and operational head to move simultaneously. In general terms, the control mechanism was identical irrespective of what sort of operational head was mounted. The program steps defined a path that could be followed by any operational head mounted to an axis. The operational envelope of the system was defined by how far the system could move down an axis until it reached its limit of travel.
Similarly, additive manufacturing systems have evolved often as limited systems that were configured for only one specific (sometimes proprietary) source material, or one type of processing element and even one specific head. Such systems had little flexibility in accommodating other processing elements or other additive layup materials. For example, for typical ink printers, as shown in U.S. Pat. No. 8,807,721, a cartridge is shown with replacement possible, but such is generally limited to only one type of cartridge and cannot accommodate the full scope of alterations desired. Even on systems where it might have been theoretically possible change a process element, such changes were not able to be accomplished during the fabrication of the item. Instead manual change out, usually with a complete reconfiguration and reboot with new drivers and even calibration, was required.
None of the existing systems achieved the level of fabrication optimization or allowed for the efficiency of fabrication that was desired in these regards. Not only has it been difficult and only for trained technicians to change process capabilities, but the specific movements and end result fabrications have been perceived as all that was possible. Users simply accepted that it was necessarily time consuming to switch capabilities on a given machine, that new fabrication data had to be entered upon any change out, and that movements had to be the way they were because of the constraints of the movement system itself. The present system aims to solve these and other problems by providing new capabilities and new processing techniques that can be employed to overcome the limits of preexisting systems.